Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-03-07
THE EXPRESS PORTRAITURE.

abuse this paper for doing Just what THE
GAZETTE has often done-Ihat is, II 1t told
the truth IN It's portraitures.-LSsn Antonio
| Express.
Had the Express said "the Lower
House was the homeliest and n ost I'M
intellectual House ever convened" its
representative would not nave been
bounced, in THE GAzETTE's opinion
The GAZETTE does not desire to repeat
here what the Express did say. but il
was a portraiture of the House that
was a gross personal assault, and the
Express has a knowledge of the
English language too critical to assert
otherwise. That paper has but to re read
what it said to see what vast difference
there is between what 1t said and what it
now declares it said; and we are greatly
mistaken in the intelligence of the Ex-
press if it does not realize that it put a
gross aftront upon the members OF the
Lower House as body. and that, too,
without visible provocation.
THE GAZETTE has admired the brillian-
cy of the style of the Austin reports sent
to the Express, but Its admiration did nor
extend to the perversion of that bTiilancy
to unprovoked and unmeritcd assaults
The Express says: "THE GAZETTE, prob
ably more than any other paper, has in
the past few years INDUCED in por raft
ure of members of the Legislature, and
if the Express mistakes not, boosted of
its superior enterprise in doing so. Was
THE GAZETTE right and the Express
wrong? Was THE GAZETTE to be COM
mended for enterprise and the Express
condemned for discourtesy?"
The Express is disingenuous and in
genious. 1t is too late to interpret as it
now does its frightful portraiture of gen
tlemen and honorable representatives of
the people-tor no reproach has been cast
upon their honor by any man, and no one
has dared to question their honesty Or
patriotism. With great skill the Express
seeks to make il appear that the mem
bers are angry because called ugly and
unintellectual. What the Express did
say was printed and bears it's own inter-
probation to every man who reads.
TIE GAZETTE puts these questions to
the Express: In private life do not men
speak well of others whenever opportuni-
y is offered? When men find nothing
complimentary to say of others do they
not remain silent unless provoked?
Do men presume to riiicule the personal
appearance and dress OF others and
cali them asses without provoCation?
And when men, without provoCation
do these things, are they not esteemed
rude and ungentlemanly, and are not
their gratuitous personalities resented?
Wherein should be the difference be-
tween newspaper and man? In Texas
there is not more courteous gentleman
than the editor of the Express-he is
neither rude nor rutfianly; why should ne
put into his paper a caricature without
provocation which he would not in
dulge in personal intercourse without
great prov ocation? This point THE GA
zETTE insists upon that the Express had
no provocation as a palladium of the
people for the publication it made, that
the publication could not possibly
be of any public benefit, that it
was unjustifable being unprovoked,
and was calculated to lessen
the influence of all newspapers,
and, because there was no provocation to
such portraiture, create the impression
hat the Express Itself had some individu
al grievance which caused it to go beyond
the limits ofpublic action and assail the
members personally.
1t would have been wiser, perhaps, il
the members could have restrained their
very natural indignation at such mistreat-
ment -mistreatment because without
provocation-but they no doubt yielded,
as, 1t may be, the Express itself did, to
the human nature which doth so easily
beset US all. At any rate, it IS always
much easier to say what one would do
under given circumstances than
to do it, and before the Lower
House is criticised for resenting an IN
provoked personal attack the critics
should put themselves in the places of the
members. And before the Express fur
Their contends for its right to say all it
did say of the members, that paper
should state what the provOcation was.
If it had no provocation and claims only
an abstract right, then it should not COM
plain that the House resented this exer
else of right which, being unprovoked,
was a wrong. And The GAZETTE insists
that, even had the picture been true, it
would have been no provocation to the
painting of it.
Rubbing 1t IL.